[contravariant]

If you were to ask Kant, yes.

Assuming he'd agree that advertising was immoral, which he arguably would as advertising manipulates people in a way that might not be in their best interests, thereby using them as means and not as ends in and of themselves.

It's an interesting case though as merely informing people is not immoral, far from it, you have a moral duty to spread information that you think would help others. The problem with advertising is that it's not furthering other people's goals, but instead uses them as means to further the advertisers goals, which violates Kant's principles.

[dibstern]

You’re just arguing from Kant’s authority here. In my view (and in the views of many others, including many renowned philosophers and many important legal systems) Kant’s views are deeply flawed (anyone can argue from some authority). But this is my view because there are many situations in which otherwise ‘bad’ actions may be easily justified. Sure, ethics is currently a matter of opinion, but I think the fact that some opinions on ethics are more easily lambasted than others suggests that their quality differs. And yours is certainly a minority opinion, a good thing in my view.